We bought the '95 in 2004 for $4000.
It had A/C, AWD and seating for 8.
We had just had our 4th child so needed something that could seat 6 so that threw out most of the cars from the equation.
I loved this van but it started to cost money and working under the hood was a real pain due to the engine compartment being so small and the "dog house" in the interior having to be removed to work on anything.
Mechanics automatically charge more to work on these types of vehicle since there is a lot of effort to gain access to the parts that need to be replaced.
Luckily, I could do a lot of the work my self.
For the 5 years we owned it, I put about $1000-1500 each year into it.
Reliable, roomy, comfortable for
kids.Drivers seat a bit small
especially left leg room. The main
driver, my wife loves it mostly for the
great view of the road and the carrying
capacity. Dutch doors in the rear nice,
however the weatherstripping has to be
replaced once every three years.
Handling fine for a truck chassis
Bought it new in Cal in 95 with the
California package of most upgrades.
Has very good power for acceleration
and towing. Always starts and runs in
excellent manner. I like the truck
type feel as it is built on a truck
chassis with rear wheel drive. Bit
light in back for driving on ice. Bench
seats not comfortable for adult to sit
in for long drives.
I bought this van new in 1995 after having two Chrysler "Magic Wagons." The Astro has lots more room, more power, has been much more reliable, and uses no more fuel than my 1993 Grande Voyager did. The only downside is that it is on a truck chassis, so ride and handling is more truck-like than the Chrysler product. The Astro and Safari have taken an undeserved bad rap from some auto mags-just because of the fuel economy-but I have 276,000km on mine, many owners report in excess of 500,000km and still running strong. My two Chrysler vans were falling apart within two years. The Astro has been a much better purchase.